FBI report warned of 'war' at Capitol, contradicting claims there was no indication of looming violence

  
Via:  Just Jim NC TttH  •  one week ago  •  53 comments

By:   Devlin Barrett, Matt Zapotosky (MSN)

FBI report warned of 'war' at Capitol, contradicting claims there was no indication of looming violence
An internal FBI report reviewed by The Post is the starkest evidence yet of the sizable intelligence failure that preceded last week's mayhem.

Leave a comment to auto-join group We the People

We the People

Some law enforcement officials took the view that pro-Trump protesters are generally known for over-the-top rhetoric but not much violence, and therefore the event did not pose a particularly grave risk, according to people familiar with the security discussions leading up to Jan. 6.


S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



FBI report warned of 'war' at Capitol, contradicting claims there was no indication of looming violence

A day before rioters stormed Congress, an FBI office in Virginia issued an explicit internal warning that extremists were preparing to travel to Washington to commit violence and "war," according to an internal document reviewed by The Washington Post that contradicts a senior official's declaration the bureau had no intelligence indicating anyone at last week's pro-Trump protest planned to do harm.

A situational information report approved for release the day before the U.S. Capitol riot painted a dire portrait of dangerous plans, including individuals sharing a map of the complex's tunnels, and possible rally points for would-be conspirators to meet up in Kentucky, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts and South Carolina and head in groups to Washington.

"As of 5 January 2021, FBI Norfolk received information indicating calls for violence in response to 'unlawful lockdowns' to begin on 6 January 2021 in Washington. D.C.," the document says. "An online thread discussed specific calls for violence to include stating 'Be ready to fight. Congress needs to hear glass breaking, doors being kicked in, and blood from their BLM and Pantifa slave soldiers being spilled. Get violent. Stop calling this a march, or rally, or a protest. Go there ready for war. We get our President or we die. NOTHING else will achieve this goal."

BLM is likely a reference to the Black Lives Matter movement for racial justice. Pantifa is a derogatory term for antifa, a far-left anti-fascist movement whose adherents sometimes engage in violent clashes with right-wing extremists.

Yet even with that information in hand, the report's unidentified author expressed concern that the FBI might be encroaching on free speech rights.

The warning is the starkest evidence yet of the sizable intelligence failure that preceded the mayhem, which claimed the lives of five people, although one law enforcement official, speaking on the condition of anonymity to avoid disciplinary action, said the failure was not one of intelligence but of acting on the intelligence.

An FBI official familiar with the document said that within 45 minutes of learning about the alarming online conversation, the Norfolk FBI office wrote the report and shared it with others within the bureau. It was not immediately clear how many law enforcement agencies outside the FBI were told, but the information was briefed to FBI officials at the bureau's Washington field office the day before the attack, this official said.

The official, who like others spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss ongoing investigations, added that the report was raw intelligence and that at the time it was written, the FBI did not know the identities of those making the online statements.

The FBI already faces tough questions about why it was not more attuned to what was being discussed in public Internet conversations in the days leading up to the attack, and why the bureau and other agencies seemed to do little to prepare for the possibility of mass violence.

The document notes that the information represents the view of the FBI's Norfolk office, is not to be shared outside law enforcement circles, that it is not "finally evaluated intelligence," and that agencies that receive it "are requested not to take action based on this raw reporting without prior coordination with the FBI."

Multiple law enforcement officials have said privately in recent days that the level of violence exhibited at the Capitol has led to difficult discussions within the FBI and other agencies about race, terrorism, and whether investigators failed to register the degree of danger because the overwhelming majority of the participants at the rally were White conservatives fiercely loyal to the President Trump.

"Individuals/Organizations named in this [situational information report] have been identified as participating in activities that are protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution," the document says. "Their inclusion here is not intended to associate the protected activity with criminality or a threat to national security, or to infer that such protected activity itself violates federal law.

"However," it continues, "based on known intelligence and/or specific historical observations, it is possible the protected activity could invite a violent reaction towards the subject individual or others in retaliation or with the goal of stopping the protected activity from occurring in the first instance. In the event no violent reaction occurs, FBI policy and federal law dictates that no further record to be made of the protected activity."

The document notes that one online comment advised, "if Antifa or BLM get violent, leave them dead in the street," while another said they need "people on standby to provide supplies, including water and medical, to the front lines. The individual also discussed the need to evacuate noncombatants and wounded to medical care."

On Jan. 6, a large, angry crowd of people who had attended a nearby rally marched to the Capitol, smashing windows and breaking down doors to get inside. One woman in the mob was shot and killed by a Capitol Police officer; officials said three others in the crowd died from medical emergencies. Another Capitol police officer died after suffering injuries.

On Friday, the head of the FBI's Washington Field Office, Steven D'Antuono, told reporters "there was no indication" of anything planned for the day of Trump's rally "other than First Amendment-protected activity." D'Antuono added, "we worked diligently with our partners on this."

The FBI said in a statement that its "standard practice is to not comment on specific intelligence products," but added that FBI field offices "routinely share information with their local law enforcement partners to assist in protecting the communities they serve."

The FBI did not detail specifically who saw the document before the mob attack on Congress or what, if anything, was done in response.

For weeks leading up to the event, FBI officials discounted any suggestion that the protest of pro-Trump supporters upset about the scheduled certification of Joe Biden's election could be a security threat on a scale with racial justice protests last summer in the wake of George Floyd's death in Minneapolis police custody.

While the nation's capital is one of the most heavily guarded cities on the planet, local and federal law enforcement agencies sought to take a low-key approach to last week's event, publicly and privately expressing concerns that they did not want to repeat the ugly clashes between protesters and police last year.

Some law enforcement officials took the view that pro-Trump protesters are generally known for over-the-top rhetoric but not much violence, and therefore the event did not pose a particularly grave risk, according to people familiar with the security discussions leading up to Jan. 6.

Even so, there were warning signs, though none as stark as the one from the FBI's Norfolk office.

FBI agents had in the weeks before the Trump rally visited suspected extremists hoping to glean whether they had violent intentions, a person familiar with the matter said, though it was not immediately clear who was visited or if the FBI was specifically tracking anyone who would later be charged criminally. These visits were first reported Sunday by NBC News.

In addition, in the days leading up to the demonstration, some Capitol Hill staffers were told by supervisors to not come into work that day, if possible, because it seemed the danger level would be higher than a lot of prior protests, according to a person familiar with the warning. Capitol Police did not take the kind of extra precautions, such as frozen zones and hardened barriers, that are typically used in major events around the Capitol.

Now, the Justice Department and federal agents are scrambling to identify and arrest those responsible for last week's violence, in part because there is already significant online discussion of new potential clashes Sunday and again on Jan. 20 when Biden will be inaugurated.

Federal agents remain in a state of high-alert in the days leading up to the inauguration as authorities brace for possible violence not just in Washington, but around the country, officials said.

The FBI recently issued a different memo saying that "armed protests" were being planned "at all 50 state capitols" and in D.C. in the days leading up to the inauguration, according to an official familiar with the matter, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive law enforcement matter.

The memo — first reported on by ABC News and later confirmed by The Washington Post — is a raw intelligence product, compiling information gathered by the bureau and several other government agencies, an official said. Some of it is unverified, and the threat is likely to differ significantly from place to place, the official said.

But the data it highlights to law enforcement are nonetheless troubling — including that there was information suggesting people might storm government offices, or stage an uprising were Trump to be removed from office, the official said.

In a statement, the FBI declined to comment specifically on the memo about state capitols but said: "Our efforts are focused on identifying, investigating, and disrupting individuals that are inciting violence and engaging in criminal activity. As we do in the normal course of business, we are gathering information to identify any potential threats and are sharing that information with our partners.

"The FBI respects the rights of individuals to peacefully exercise their First Amendment rights," it continues. "Our focus is not on peaceful protesters, but on those threatening their safety and the safety of other citizens with violence and destruction of property."


Tags

jrGroupDiscuss - desc
[]
 
Just Jim NC TttH
1  seeder  Just Jim NC TttH    one week ago

Interesting revelation.......................no wonder the police chief resigned the next day.

 
 
 
JBB
1.1  JBB  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @1    one week ago

Even more interesting is why our military was told to, "Stand by and stand down". Doesn't that sound familiar to you? Where have we heard that before?

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
1.1.1  seeder  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  JBB @1.1    one week ago

Who told them to stand by and stand down except by a couple of protester. Can't find them being told that. Do you have a link for that?

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.2  Texan1211  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @1.1.1    one week ago
Do you have a link for that?

jrSmiley_91_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
JBB
1.1.3  JBB  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @1.1.1    one week ago

Who? That is what I am asking? Who told the national guard to stand down on Wednesday?

Ex-Capitol Police Chief Says Requests For National Guard Denied 6 Times In Riot.

January 11, 2021 6:17 AM ET
gettyimages-1295038307-d35496e12c2ada18505e1592fda0018b7a74a273-s800-c85.jpg

Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund resigned after thousands of supporters of President Trump stormed the U.S. Capitol building on Wednesday. Sund says his requests to superiors to get the National Guard to respond to the riot at the Capitol were rebuffed

The former chief of U.S. Capitol Police says security officials at the House and Senate rebuffed his early requests to call in the National Guard ahead of a demonstration in support of President Trump that turned into a deadly attack on Congress.

Former chief Steven Sund --   who   resigned his post   last week after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called for him to step down   --   made the assertions in an interview with   The Washington Post   published Sunday.

Sund contradicts claims made by officials after Wednesday's assault on Capitol Hill. Sund's superiors said previously that the National Guard and other additional security support could have been provided, but no one at the Capitol requested it.

Sund told the   Post   that House Sergeant-at-Arms Paul Irving was concerned with the "optics" of declaring an emergency ahead of the protests and rejected a National Guard presence. He says Senate Sergeant-at-Arms Michael Stenger recommended that he informally request the Guard to be ready in case it was needed to maintain security.

Like Sund, Irving and Stenger have also since resigned their posts.

Sund says he requested assistance six times ahead of and during the attack on the Capitol. Each of those requests was denied or delayed, he says.

Washington, D.C., Mayor Muriel Bowser also wanted a light police presence at the Capitol. She reportedly wanted to avoid a similar scenario as last summer, when federal forces responded to demonstrators opposed to police abuses who assembled near the White House.

During Wednesday's violence, Bowser   requested , and received, a limited force of 340 from the D.C. National Guard. Those troops were unarmed and their job was to help with traffic flow — not law enforcement, which was meant to be handled by D.C. police.

When the mob reached the Capitol complex at about 12:40 p.m. ET on Wednesday, it took about 15 minutes for the west side perimeter of the building to be breached, he says. The Capitol Police contingent, which numbered around 1,400 that day, was quickly overrun by the estimated 8,000 rioters.

"If we would have had the National Guard we could have held them at bay longer, until more officers from our partner agencies could arrive," he says.

Sund says during a conference call with several law enforcement officials at about 2:26 p.m., he asked the Pentagon to provide backup.

Senior Army official Lt. Gen. Walter E. Piatt, director of the Army Staff, said on the call he couldn't recommend that Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy authorize deployment, Sund and others on the call told the   Post . Piatt reportedly said, "I don't like the visual of the National Guard standing a police line with the Capitol in the background," the   Post   reported.

It would be more than three hours before any National Guard troops arrived, well after the damage at the Capitol had been done."

 
 
 
JBB
1.1.4  JBB  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.2    one week ago

Quit your trolling...

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.5  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @1.1.4    one week ago
Quit your trolling...

I just imagined your customary response when asked for links---a picture of sausage!

Got a problem with that?

I don't.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
1.1.6  seeder  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  JBB @1.1.3    one week ago

Thanks for the back story and I guess if one wants to they can construe some of the elements of it as a stand down.

 
 
 
JBB
1.1.7  JBB  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @1.1.6    one week ago

You are welcome. This all needs to be investigated further as does any ties between the organizers and any police and ex-military organizations...

 
 
 
MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)
1.1.8  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)  replied to  JBB @1.1.3    one week ago
House Sergeant-at-Arms Paul Irving was concerned with the "optics" of declaring an emergency ahead of the protests and rejected a National Guard presence. He says Senate Sergeant-at-Arms Michael Stenger recommended that he informally request the Guard to be ready in case it was needed to maintain security.
Sund says he requested assistance six times ahead of and during the attack on the Capitol. Each of those requests was denied or delayed, he says.

He requested to whom? The original one that denied him of the first request? 

Washington, D.C., Mayor Muriel Bowser also wanted a light police presence at the Capitol. She reportedly wanted to avoid a similar scenario as last summer, when federal forces responded to demonstrators opposed to police abuses who assembled near the White House.

"If we would have had the National Guard we could have held them at bay longer, until more officers from our partner agencies could arrive," he says.

Sund says during a conference call with several law enforcement officials at about 2:26 p.m., he asked the Pentagon to provide backup.

Senior Army official Lt. Gen. Walter E. Piatt, director of the Army Staff, said on the call he couldn't recommend that Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy authorize deployment, Sund and others on the call told thePost. Piatt reportedly said, "I don't like the visual of the National Guard standing a police line with the Capitol in the background," thePostreported.

It would be more than three hours before any National Guard troops arrived, well after the damage at the Capitol had been done."

Seems to me like all of those that prevent the National Guard from being at the Capitol were more concerned about what it might look like to others if they were there, protecting it. I find it interesting that they were high-ranking officials and military that made those decisions. Other than "optics" / "visual" worries, there was no good reason for them not to be there. That's quite sad.

 
 
 
JBB
1.1.9  JBB  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.5    one week ago

I generally do provide good links when asked respectfully by someone who sincerely wants to know and will respond accordingly. If that excludes you then ask yourself why?

[deleted]

 
 
 
Sunshine
1.1.10  Sunshine  replied to  JBB @1.1.7    one week ago

Well we know who refused the national guard and told the police to stand down in 2020.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.1.12  Vic Eldred  replied to  JBB @1.1.3    one week ago

Sounds like the Mayor and others didn't want it to look like they were being heavy handed. Suddenly Bowser may have discovered why security is important. She finally found something that scared her. I guess who is still playing second base.

 
 
 
Suz
1.1.13  Suz  replied to  JBB @1.1.3    one week ago
Who? That is what I am asking? Who told the national guard to stand down on Wednesday?

Clinton, perhaps?  Oh, wait.  That was Benghazi. 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
1.2  Trout Giggles  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @1    one week ago

Do you think the chief had access to this intelligence? You would think the FBI would let him know.

Good find, Jim.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
1.2.1  seeder  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Trout Giggles @1.2    one week ago

Somewhere in there it explains that they didn't disseminate the info because it wasn't verified. Still think they should have at least told them there was a possibility.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
1.2.2  Trout Giggles  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @1.2.1    one week ago

Definitely. 

 
 
 
Kavika
1.2.3  Kavika   replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @1.2.1    one week ago

That's not really clear Jim...It sounds like no they didn't, yes they did. 

The document notes that the information represents the view of the FBI’s Norfolk office, is not to be shared outside law enforcement circles, that it is not “finally evaluated intelligence,” and that agencies that receive it “are requested not to take action based on this raw reporting without prior coordination with the FBI.”

 
 
 
Suz
1.2.4  Suz  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @1.2.1    one week ago

Why is everyone hijacking your seed? 

 
 
 
Dulay
1.2.5  Dulay  replied to  Suz @1.2.4    one week ago

Gee Suz, did you happen to notice that NONE of the comments have been removed because they were off topic? 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2  JohnRussell    one week ago

Bluntly, this is a potential huge scandal. How many people in law enforcement are sympathetic to the forces that attacked the Capitol? An expert on MSNBC this morning says he has fears that there are "Trump" elements in the FBI that might have turned a blind eye to warnings such as described in the WAPO story. 

 
 
 
Ozzwald
2.1  Ozzwald  replied to  JohnRussell @2    one week ago
How many people in law enforcement are sympathetic to the forces that attacked the Capitol?

Good question.  Was the lack of an adequate police presence truly incompetence, or something more sinister?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3  JohnRussell    one week ago
"As of 5 January 2021, FBI Norfolk received information indicating calls for violence in response to 'unlawful lockdowns' to begin on 6 January 2021 in Washington. D.C.," the document says. "An online thread discussed specific calls for violence to include stating 'Be ready to fight. Congress needs to hear glass breaking, doors being kicked in, and blood from their BLM and Pantifa slave soldiers being spilled. Get violent. Stop calling this a march, or rally, or a protest. Go there ready for war. We get our President or we die. NOTHING else will achieve this goal."
 
 
 
Greg Jones
4  Greg Jones    one week ago

Trump supporters are everywhere.

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
4.1  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  Greg Jones @4    one week ago

So are Russian trolls.  Coincidence?

 
 
 
Kavika
4.2  Kavika   replied to  Greg Jones @4    one week ago
Trump supporters are everywhere.

Yes, they are, and here is one of them.

,512

 
 
 
Kavika
4.2.1  Kavika   replied to  Kavika @4.2    one week ago

Here is another one.

A firefighter in Stanford FL by the name of Andrew Williams. He's been arrested is in jail and will be facing federal charges. 

512

I believe it's up to 170 Trump supporters have been arrested. 

They can run but they can't hide.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
4.3  Vic Eldred  replied to  Greg Jones @4    one week ago

Wouldn't it be nice if progressives could treat people as individuals...you know, assess their character and experience as individual human beings before passing judgment on them?

They have to call the extremists who infiltrated the crowd "Trump supporters."  They have to stomp out the opposition.

"Stalin had eliminated all likely potential opposition to his leadership by late 1934 and was the unchallenged leader of both party and state. Nevertheless, he proceeded to purge the party rank and file and to terrorize the entire country with widespread arrests and executions. During the ensuing Great Terror, which included the notorious show trials of Stalin's former Bolshevik opponents in 1936-1938 and reached its peak in 1937 and 1938, millions of innocent Soviet citizens were sent off to labor camps or killed in prison.

By the time the terror subsided in 1939, Stalin had managed to bring both the party and the public to a state of complete submission to his rule."




We are seeing it now play out right here in America.

 
 
 
Dulay
4.3.1  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.3    one week ago
Wouldn't it be nice if progressives could treat people as individuals...you know, assess their character and experience as individual human beings before passing judgment on them?

I'd invite you to recognize the contradiction in that sentence but I doubt that you could. 

They have to call the extremists who infiltrated the crowd "Trump supporters." 

Post EVIDENCE that 'extremists' that weren't Trump supporters were in the crowd of insurgents Vic. 

They have to stomp out the opposition.

Aren't YOU opposed to the insurgents Vic? What do you propose we DO with them? 

We are seeing it now play out right here in America.

Utter BS. 

 
 
 
Kavika
4.3.2  Kavika   replied to  Vic Eldred @4.3    one week ago
Wouldn't it be nice if progressives could treat people as individuals...you know, assess their character and experience as individual human beings before passing judgment on them?

You should practice what you preach, Vic.

They have to call the extremists who infiltrated the crowd "Trump supporters."  They have to stomp out the opposition.

There were thousands of those extremists that join the Trumpettes.

Stalin had eliminated all likely potential opposition to his leadership by late 1934 and was the unchallenged leader of both party and state. Nevertheless, he proceeded to purge the party rank and file and to terrorize the entire country with widespread arrests and executions. During the ensuing Great Terror, which included the notorious show trials of Stalin's former Bolshevik opponents in 1936-1938 and reached its peak in 1937 and 1938, millions of innocent Soviet citizens were sent off to labor camps or killed in prison. By the time the terror subsided in 1939, Stalin had managed to bring both the party and the public to a state of complete submission to his rule."

Didn't you say it was like Tailgunner Joe, before?  

We are seeing it now play out right here in America.

What were are seeing was an attack on our American congress by traitors. Now they are being hunted down like the traitors that they are. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
4.3.3  Vic Eldred  replied to  Kavika @4.3.2    one week ago
You should practice what you preach, Vic.

I do. I give everyone a chance, sometimes 3 chances before I pass judgement.


There were thousands of those extremists that join the Trumpettes.

You don't know how many extremists become part of political parties. How big is BLMor antifa?


What were are seeing 

We are seeing the suppression of any dissent from leftist doctrine.

 
 
 
Kavika
4.3.4  Kavika   replied to  Vic Eldred @4.3.3    one week ago
I do. I give everyone a chance, sometimes 3 chances before I pass judgement.

Sure you do.

You don't know how many extremists become part of political parties. How big is BLMor antifa?

Live tv and video showed thousands rioting, so there is that. BLM or Antifa have nothing to do with the comment so play squirrel somewhere else.

We are seeing the suppression of any dissent from leftist doctrine.

Suppression, LOL arresting people for changes up to and including murder is suppression!! That's right field nonsense. Or is it that Trump can't tweet anymore and that's more right field nonsense. 

After four-plus years of Trump lies and stirring the pot it came to a head on the 6th. Too bad neither you nor Trump can face the truth.

Now we have 15 to 20,000 NG in DC for the next week and every state capital in the country on high alert. That is because of the right-wing doctrine.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
4.3.5  Vic Eldred  replied to  Kavika @4.3.4    one week ago
Sure you do.

Yup...three strikes and you're out!


BLM or Antifa have nothing to do with the comment so play squirrel somewhere else.

Oh, but they do - they are the point of reference for any discussion of violence in America today!


Suppression

Never heard of it? What else would you call censorship, black listing and taking peoples jobs away?


 That is because of the right-wing doctrine.

That is because our leftist rulers are taking advantage of and exploiting last weeks totally unexpected mayhem.

 
 
 
Kavika
4.3.6  Kavika   replied to  Vic Eldred @4.3.5    one week ago
Yup...three strikes and you're out!

You struck out a long time ago.

Oh, but they do - they are the point of reference for any discussion of violence in America today!

I suppose that's true in your mind since you need to find excuses for Trump's right wing terrorists. 

Never heard of it? What else would you call censorship, black listing and taking peoples jobs away?

I'd call it well deserved. Nothing done was illegal and as the right-wing loves to say, take responsibility for your actions.

That is because our leftist rulers are taking advantage of and exploiting last weeks totally unexpected mayhem.

Leftist rulers...OMG that's too funny and unexpected mayhem. First of all the only people that thought it was unexpected are branches of the Trump Administration. 

 
 
 
Dulay
4.3.7  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.3.5    one week ago
Oh, but they do - they are the point of reference for any discussion of violence in America today!

Based on WHAT Vic. Dir. Wray stated that White Supremist were the most dangerous to our National Security. Perhaps you have some evidence that he lacks. Care to share? 

Never heard of it? What else would you call censorship, black listing and taking peoples jobs away?

WHO is being censored Vic? 

What do you mean by blacklisting? 

Is it your posit that companies should be forced to retain someone who is under Federal indictment?

Who is seen in video violating Federal law?

Who has violated company ethics rules? 

That is because our leftist rulers are taking advantage of and exploiting last weeks totally unexpected mayhem.

Seriously Vic, there are HUNDREDS of reports all over the media about the FBI, NYPD, DHS et al KNEW what was being planned. Just stop. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
4.3.8  Vic Eldred  replied to  Kavika @4.3.6    one week ago
You struck out a long time ago.

It is a personal thing with you, but that's ok I don't care for you either.


I suppose that's true in your mind

Not just in my mind, but the collective memory of millions of Americans who watched the rioting as blue state mayors and governors allowed it all.


I'd call it well deserved.

And that's part of the reason you struck out so quickly

 
 
 
Kavika
4.3.9  Kavika   replied to  Vic Eldred @4.3.8    one week ago

Happy Days to you Vic as you travel in your parallel universe.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
4.3.10  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dulay @4.3.7    6 days ago
Based on WHAT Vic. Dir. Wray stated that White Supremist were the most dangerous to our National Security.

The history of riots hasn't backed him up in that assessment.


WHO is being censored Vic? 

Everyone who disagrees with the left.


What do you mean by blacklisting? 

Just what it means via definition - listing people in the Trump administration in order to deny them future employment.


Is it your posit that companies should be forced to retain someone who is under Federal indictment?

Of course not. Please stay on topic.


Who is seen in video violating Federal law?

Anarchists like John Sullivan.


Who has violated company ethics rules? 

Eric Swalwell


Seriously Vic, there are HUNDREDS of reports all over the media about the FBI, NYPD, DHS et al KNEW what was being planned.

Then why didn't mayor Bowser want the security?

 
 
 
Dulay
4.3.11  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.3.10    6 days ago
The history of riots hasn't backed him up in that assessment.

The history of death and terrorism does. 

Everyone who disagrees with the left.

Pure hyperbolic bullshit. 

Just what it means via definition - listing people in the Trump administration in order to deny them future employment.

WHO would be denying them future employment Vic? Is it your posit that conservative groups, law firms and media intend to refer to a list created by liberals to make employment decisions. I hope even you can see just how ridiculous that sounds. 

Of course not. Please stay on topic.

You made the lose of their job a topic Vic. 

Anarchists like John Sullivan.

Eric Swalwell

What ethics rule did Swalwell violate Vic? 

Then why didn't mayor Bowser want the security?

WTF does Mayor Bowser have to do with the security of the Capitol Vic? Be specific. 

 
 
 
Kavika
5  Kavika     one week ago

An epic failure of most agencies or in everyday speak, a total cluster fuck. Sadly I believe that some of the Capitol Police were hung out and left on their own and performed the best they could. 

It is impossible to believe that no one seemed to know that this was going to happen. The Capitol Police have an intelligence unit and they missed everything that all the other groups that track online crazies picked up on. The ADL passed on information to the authorities for weeks before and got no response. They finally went public on Jan. 4th and posted a blog.

 
 
 
MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)
5.1  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)  replied to  Kavika @5    one week ago
Sadly I believe that some of the Capitol Police were hung out and left on their own and performed the best they could. 

That's exactly how it seems and it is very sad.

 
 
 
Kavika
5.2  Kavika   replied to  Kavika @5    one week ago

The part about them having a map of all the underground tunnels is pretty scary. I don't know if that would be part of the public record or not. I would think not.

 
 
 
MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)
5.2.1  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)  replied to  Kavika @5.2    one week ago

Hell yes that's scary! I doubt it would be part of public record... not for something like a Federal or State building.

 
 
 
Kavika
5.2.2  Kavika   replied to  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka) @5.2.1    one week ago

That would give an indication that there were some insiders being part of the insurrection.

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
5.2.3  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  Kavika @5.2    one week ago
The part about them having a map of all the underground tunnels is pretty scary. I don't know if that would be part of the public record or not. I would think not.

There is an underground 'people mover' system that has tracks leading from the Capitol Building to the Senate offices on one side, and the House offices on the other.  There are also walking tunnels.  Although there are still occasional tours that include the underground facilities, visitors are generally prohibited, especially without an escort.  There is no public access during official proceedings.  

My personal experience was that it was an immense maze-like system of largely unmarked tunnels and doors.  There would be no way a person off the street could navigate that confusion without well-schooled assistance, which would include access codes or print recognition. 

It will not surprise me if it is eventually discovered that the Capitol police officer who committed suicide was complicit in every bit of what happened on the 6th.

 
 
 
Dulay
5.2.4  Dulay  replied to  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka) @5.2.1    one week ago

I found dozens of hyperlinks to online maps of the Capitol tunnel system, NONE of which came up. I have no idea when they went offline but I'm glad they are and hope it isn't too little too late. 

 
 
 
MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)
5.2.5  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)  replied to  Kavika @5.2.2    one week ago

I suppose it would.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
6  Bob Nelson    one week ago

My guess is that the clusterfuck is partly due to inter-agency rivalry, partly to Administration sabotage, and partly to infiltrated fascists.

 
 
 
Thomas
7  Thomas    one week ago

One and one-half hours......That is all that really matters. Find the people who made the reaction of the National Guard so slow. They were ready to go. Find the person who orchestrated that and ask. I would dearly like to know.

 
 
 
Dulay
7.1  Dulay  replied to  Thomas @7    one week ago

I read that when the original call went out, they recalled the whole NG to the armory to re-equip to riot gear. It said that THAT took something over an hour. I don't think they were release immediately once they were ready though. I'd have to search my history to find the days old article...

 
 
 
MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)
7.1.1  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)  replied to  Dulay @7.1    one week ago

You're right... they didn't show for more than 3 hours. 

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
7.1.2  Bob Nelson  replied to  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka) @7.1.1    one week ago

Gov Hogan of Maryland described his experience of the affair . It's eye-opening.

Hogan is a Republican who gets huge scores in an ultra-blue state.

 
 
 
Thomas
8  Thomas    one week ago

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online








JohnRussell
Paula Bartholomew
Wishful_thinkin
Right Down the Center
Trotsky's Spectre
Ozzwald
Gordy327
JBB


56 visitors